The aim in this case happens to be descriptive, but even if the intent
were directive, why should this cause alienation? Noone can force
language change, especially on the internet, which only expresses
*virtual* reality, and even in real reality, since users of language
don't generally have coercive powers, what's to be so scared of, if
you'll pardon the linguistic lapse. Why are some men panicked (sp.?) by
what they construe as feminist direction, especially again on the
internet. This doesn't, unfortunately, threaten male domination in this
country,economically or politically, if you look at Congress or the heads
of large corporations. So why take it so seriously, as ifmale power or
something were really at stake. Ruby Rohrlich

On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Allan Dunn wrote:

>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:>> > While it is undoubtedly true that changing attitudes precedes changing> > language, still perhaps it helps change attitudes when those of us whose> > attitudes have changed indicate the changes in language that have> > ensued. Ruby Rohrlich>> What worries me, however, is who is "us", and that the language may have> changed for a portion of intelligencia (which could be a start), but not for> speakers in general, which only alienates and seperates them.> If the aim is descriptive, not directive then I happen to agree with you.> The best vehicle for change in language> is awareness and usage by speakers in that language>> AD>